posted at 6:17 pm on November 10, 2009 by Allahpundit

I think this is new information, but honestly, the sheer volume of missed red flags has led me to lose track. We already knew that the FBI shrugged off Hasan’s e-mails to jihadbot preacher Aulaqi, but did we know that a Pentagon investigator operating as part of the joint terrorism task force did the same thing?

Two officials speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case on the record said the Washington-based joint terrorism task force overseen by the FBI was notified of communications between Hasan and a radical imam overseas, and the information was turned over to a Defense Criminal Investigative Service employee assigned to the task force.

That worker wrote up an assessment of Hasan after reviewing the Army major’s personnel file and the communications. The assessment concluded Hasan did not merit further investigation, in large part because his communications with the imam were centered on a research paper he was writing at the time, and the investigator had concluded Hasan was in fact working on such a paper, the officials said…

Within hours after the role of the defense investigator on the task force was disclosed, a senior defense official said “based on what we know now, neither the U.S. Army nor any other organization within the Department of Defense knew of Maj. Hasan’s contacts with any Muslim extremists.”

In other words, because the JTTF found nothing of concern, the information about Aulaqi was never shared with the military. Here’s a krazy kwestion for you: Supposedly, the e-mails between Hasan and Aulaqi dealt with simple religious matters, in which case, why wasn’t Hasan ever so much as notified that his correspondence had turned up in JTTF surveillance? If their read on him at the time was that he was harmless and merely seeking spiritual guidance, why wouldn’t they pull him aside and ask if he happened to know that his new mentor was wanted for terrorism? If he answered yes, there’s another giant red flag right there; if he answered no, then he’s been placed on notice and they could watch to see if he tried to contact Aulaqi again notwithstanding. Either way, why not probe him a little to see if their suspicions that he was innocent were well founded? Or is the answer to that question too obvious to even ask?

Mueller has now ordered an FBI inquiry into the case of the missing red flags, you’ll be pleased to know. Meanwhile, here’s a snippet from The One’s interview with Tapper last night in which he speculates that Hasan might simply have “cracked” while emphasizing that he’s withholding judgment. Nixon once got into trouble by commenting on Charles Manson’s guilt while the trial was still going on so doubtless part of this answer is due to Obama not wanting to prejudice the case by embracing a theory of the crime. Although even so, a simple “no comment” would have gone a long way, wouldn’t it? Exit question: How long, pray tell, did it take Hasan to “crack” per The One’s theory? Two years? Click the image to watch.

Update: One further thought. For all the warranted grief the feds are getting for not catching the warning signs and discharging him, what exactly was the plan if they did discharge him? He’s a possible terrorist threat, so … they’re going to kick him off the base and leave him to mingle in the general civilian population? The bigger issue here is what to do about guys whom you have strong reason to suspect will do something crazy but who haven’t done anything illegal (yet). In the case of Najibullah Zazi, that’s easy: You know he’s part of a cell, you know he’s been to the training camps, so you surveil him constantly and eventually try to take down the whole network. With a lone-wolf type like Hasan, it’s harder. Without any links to anyone else suggesting he might be ready to go off, he’s potentially a dead-end lead for years. I don’t know what the answer is.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

Furthermore, Hasan was apparently politically unprofessional at Walter Reed. There is no agency that can connect the dots but several different agencies should have done more about the dots that they saw.

highhopes on November 10, 2009 at 7:33 PM

His peers knews. Even his Muslim peers in the Army knew. They were concerned.

This is a case of the Army ignoring the warnings articulated by several sources.

This is why I couldn’t listen to his speech today. He’s one person in speeches and a completely different person in every day life. To put it bluntly, he’s full of crap. Every single day Barry has tried to deny terrorism, without actually having to say those words. Yet, “teabaggers” and “anti government” people(aka every day Americans) are extremists, the cops acted stupidly, etc. etc. etc… It disgusts me to no end. Ya Hasan just went bat sh*t crazy over islam that day…RIGHT. In the age of Obama there is no such thing as terror.

I just don’t understand what liberals get from defending muslim terrorists. I mean, it’s not like the jihadists are progressive. The only thing I can think of is that they both share a deep hatred of America.

Here is a very key, important point, from Pajamas Media and Patrick Poole. I’d like to see more discussion on it!

“Why There Will Be More Military Base Shootings”

“For these critics to say that you can’t target jihadist ideology without targeting the whole of Islam is an acknowledgment on their part that the two are inseparable — a point I doubt they are ready to concede. Regardless, they can’t have it both ways: either jihadist ideology has nothing to do with Islam, as Islamic groups constantly represent, and thus it can be addressed without infringing on their freedom of religion; or they must admit, along with the “Islamophobes,” that jihadist ideology and the violence it promotes are part and parcel with Islam. The question for these critics is unavoidable: which is it?”

Where I come from a guy that is communicating with a wanted terrorist over religious matters would certainly warrant a trip to Walter Reed for a quick interview. But then I come from a real investigative background and have actually conducted criminal investigations and interviewed real bad people. Until the individuals involved in these operations get some real experience I am not sure this won’t happen again.

If they had forced him out of the military, what would have been the chance that he would have scream discrimination?

Cindy Munford on November 10, 2009 at 9:04 PM

Roughly 100%. But they weren’t unwilling to lose their costly investment in Hasan’s education by letting him go. That investment never should have been made in the first place. Aside from the carnage he caused, a pathological Islamist as a psychiatrist is about as twisted as training a pyromaniac to be a firefighter.

Who are the people causing most of the mayhem around the world? Catholics? Look around, people! Why would any muslim volunteer? Who started all of the killing in the first place, folks? Went by the name of Mohammed, if you care to look it up. What do you think happened to the Byzantine Empire (Christian)? How do you think it happened. It\’s all there for you to find out if you have a little time to spare from your TV. No wonder this country is in such sad shape.